The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office mishandled an application for permission to stay in the United Kingdom from a refugee called Mr S. They gave confusing advice over the telephone, and were then unavailable by telephone to answer follow-up questions. When Mr S wrote to them, there was a delay in answering his letters. When the letters were answered, the IND gave him wrong advice and asked him to send in documents which they then lost.

Without his permission to stay in the United Kingdom, Mr S might not have been allowed back into the country if he left. As a result, he had had to cancel a trip abroad. The Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that the IND pay him the money he had lost. The IND also gave him £100 for the stress caused by their maladministration, and promised to try to improve their service.

A doctor's practice removed the J family from its list of patients without writing to tell them. When Mrs J complained that they had not been properly notified, there was a delay in giving her an explanation. NHS guidelines say that complaints should be dealt with in 10 working days and that complainants should be told about their right to have someone independent look at their complaint. Mrs J waited two months for a full reply to her letter of complaint, and she was not told about the option of having an independent person consider her case.

The Health Service Ombudsman recommended that the practice deal with future complaints promptly and give full explanations for any delay. The Ombudsman noted that new procedures were being followed to make sure that patients received a letter telling them when they were taken off the list. The doctors in the practice also apologised to Mrs J.

X was excluded from school after complaining that a teacher had upset him. He had been told that he might face suspension unless he apologised to the teacher, but he had apologised and had not been told that he might be excluded. Although government guidelines said that exclusions should be a last resort, the school had not tried to sort things out any other way. When his mother appealed to change the decision, the meeting was cancelled without notice. It was eventually held later than it should have been.

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) told the appeal committee to follow the guidelines on exclusion. X's mother didn't want him to go to that school any more, so the LGO didn't ask for X to return. Instead, he made sure that a report showing the Ombudsman's decision was kept with X's school records so that it was clear that he had been excluded unfairly.

M had her handbag stolen with her cash card in it. She told the bank at once but it did not block the card and the thief withdrew £800. The bank said that it was M's fault because she must have kept her PIN number in the bag where the thief could find it. Staff at the bank were rude and unhelpful when she tried to pursue her complaint.

The Financial Services Ombudsman reminded the bank that a customer is not responsible for looking after their card after they have reported it lost or stolen. The bank refunded the £800 and gave M a further £400 to make up for the inconvenience it had caused her.

The Child Support Agency (CSA) is an organisation which decides how much money divorced or separated parents should pay towards their children's care. The CSA made an error in calculating the amount of maintenance Mr A was supposed to pay for his son, who did not live with him. The mistake led to them asking him for a year's payment which he did not owe. When he wrote to the CSA asking how they had calculated the maintenance, they did not reply.

Although Mr A told the CSA about a change in circumstances when he started to share the responsibility of caring for his son, the CSA did not take this into account. Despite the Welfare Section of the CSA being aware of the distress caused to Mr A, they did not see fit to speak to him personally. The mistake went on for two and a half years before Mr A was able to see a breakdown of his payments and point out the mistake.

The CSA re-assessed the amount of maintenance Mr A owed in the light of their mistake and the shared care of the child. They awarded Mr A £50 for inconvenience arising from their error and £250 as consolation for the distress this had caused. Mr A was not satisfied with this and complained to the Ombudsman through his Member of Parliament. The Ombudsman investigated his complaint and advised the CSA to reconsider the amount of the award. The Chief Executive of the CSA apologised and Mr A was given a further £200.

Mrs B added her son, G, to her motor insurance policy, describing him as a student. When he had an accident in January 2000, the insurer learnt that he was also a part-time barman. It said the claim was not valid, because it would never have agreed to cover G if it had been aware of his part-time job. However, after some delay, it paid for the repairs as a gesture of goodwill, even though it still said that the claim was not valid.

Mrs B complained about the delay in making payment and the insurer agreed to pay her £200 compensation. She remained dissatisfied, but the Financial Ombudsman Service agreed the insurer did not have an obligation to accept the claim. It considered that the goodwill payment of the repair costs and the £200 was reasonable redress for any inconvenience Mrs B had been caused as a result of the dispute over whether or not the company should pay.

The mother of a child with disabilities complained to the Irish Ombudsman about the school transport service offered by the Department of Education and Science (DES). The child suffered from spina bifida and used a wheelchair. He lived in an isolated area and attended a special school. The DES ran a free bus service which collected most of the pupils from their homes but, because of the cost involved, it could only provide transport for the complainant's child to and from a point 2.3 miles from his home. It offered to pay an annual grant of €300 towards the cost of private transport to and from the pick-up point.

The child's mother, who had two other school-going children, found the arrangement impossible to manage. It involved driving to the pick-up point, waiting for the bus with her son, then lifting him, with his wheelchair and other equipment, onto the bus. She felt that the service unfairly discriminated against her son because of the distance to the pick-up point. She thought the grant of €300 was totally inadequate and opted instead to drive her son a total of 36 miles to and from school each day.

Following an investigation the Ombudsman recommended that the child be awarded €8,600 in compensation for the inadequate transport service he had been offered. The amount was based on the cost of a taxi service each day on which his mother had taken him to school. The Ombudsman also recommended that the DES devise a fairer school transport scheme for children with special needs, including those who live in isolated areas. The DES accepted the recommendations.